TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption? - Held that: - N/N. 9/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003, inter alia, states that “exemption contained in the notification shall not apply to the specified goods bearing the brand name or trade name, whether registered or not of another person. ……” It is thus evident that to deny the benefit of the said exemption to the impugned goods, it has to be established that the brand names ‘Paras’ and ‘Wonde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent and Shri R.K. Singh, Member (T) None, for the Appellant. Shri K. Poddar, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : R.K. Singh, Member (T)]. - Appeal has been filed against order-in-appeal 185/NS/GGN/2006, dated 30-6-2006 in terms of which excise duty demand of ₹ 48,682/- was confirmed along with interest and penalties on the ground that the appellant was not entitle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailed of by it. 4. Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the said brand names admittedly did not belong to the appellant and so by implication they belonged to others and therefore, exemption benefit was correctly denied. 5. We have considered the contentions of both sides. Notification No. 9/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003, inter alia, states that exemption contained in the notification shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
